My take is that the city council has knowingly voted in a dangerous, and possibly illegal, design that will needlessly put Angelenos at risk for decades to come.

Illegal because it may violate the Americans With Disabilities Act by preventing people with handicaps from being able to cross the bridge without using the bike lanes. And because the unanimous vote — after the Public Works Committee sent the design to the full council without a recommendation — suggests that the decision was made in a backroom deal before the public session, in violation of state law.

The vote was rushed through, largely on false pretenses, before outgoing Councilmember Tom LaBonge leaves the council at the end of the month. And before David Ryu, who publicly supported sidewalks on both sides of the bridge, could come in.

It’s a shameful decision.

One that will undoubtedly cause future generations to curse those who left them with a dangerous design they may not be able to fix. And one that flies in the face of the city’s Vision Zero goals contained in the soon-to-be-adopted Mobility Plan.

The question is, where was our supposedly progressive mayor and our new rock star LADOT general manager, who both seemed to vanish just as strong leadership was called for?

Our civic leaders seem to be good at talking when it comes to improving safety and livability.

Citywide Action Alerts for Mobility Plan 2035#MobilityMonday – The City’s Mobilty Plan 2035 is going to be on vote at the full Council very soon. LACBC is launching a citywide campaign to support the plan. We need your help to spread the word out! Learn more about the campaign at the meeting and get involved!!

In today’s cheating racing news, charges that Sir Bradley cheated in setting the new hour record last Sunday have been soundly rejected, while Italy’s Southeast cycling team faces a death sentence after a fourth failed doping test linked to the Giro.

The Boulevard Sentinel’s bike lane hating Tom Topping just can’t resist. After listing all the improvements that have made Eagle Rock more livable, he blames bike lanes on Colorado Boulevard for creating largely imaginary traffic snarls, even though the road diet that created those bike lanes is one of the primary reasons behind that better livability.

The city council Public Work’s committee votes to send the one-sided sidewalk plan for the Glendale-Hyperion bridge to the full city council without a recommendation, as committee members complain about the rush to approve the plan before outgoing councilmember Tom LaBonge leaves office at the end of the month.

As Streetsblog’s Joe Linton notes in the article above, the council’s history of deferring to councilmembers’ whims preferences for items in their district means we’ll probably see yet another unanimous vote of the council in favor of the auto-centric design, while members pay lip service to the need to protect and serve the non-driving public.

If the council leadership has any real integrity, it will move to delay a vote until David Ryu, the new 4th District representative, takes office.

Ryu is on record as preferring a road diet on the bridge, with bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides, rather then the unsafe design currently being rushed through.

………

The Ventura County Grand Jury looked into bike safety, and concluded what we already know — most bike fatalities are the result of driver errors, and that the public needs to be educated on bike law.

Oh, and helmets.

Speaking of which, Bell has introduced the first sub-$100 helmet designed to protect against rotational injuries.

The new semi-green bike lanes on Westwood Blvd on the UCLA campus have plenty of markings, but don’t go very far. Councilmember Paul Koretz is bravely leading the fight to keep those bike lanes from besmirching any pavement off campus.

The 57-year old grandfather riding cross-country to honor his wife, who suffers from pancreatic cancer, and raise funds for cancer research rolls into Santa Monica.

A letter to the SGV Tribune shows there’s always some indignorant grouch who just doesn’t get CicLAvia, no matter how popular it is with the people who actually get off their ass and go.

Ralph Durham forwards word that Sunnyvale has released a draft feasibility study for the proposed Four City Steven’s Creek Trail; comments are due by the 10th. And let’s all wish Ralph auf wiedersehen for his move to Munich next month.

A Bay Area lawyer says bike riders who hit pedestrians could be covered for liability by their homeowners (or renters) insurance.

An Oregon cop responding to an emergency call hit a bike rider, who was not seriously injured; the officer admitted going through a red light, but somehow couldn’t avoid hitting a cyclist despite going just five mph. Really?

A South African court rules a electric company is liable for the injuries suffered by a cyclist who rode into a low-hanging power line. Warning, the description of his fellow riders trying to save him from electrocution is simply horrifying.

It was just three years ago that CD11 Councilmember Bill Rosendahl famously stood before his fellow council members and declared that “The culture of the car is going to end now!”

True to his word, the City of Los Angeles has made remarkable progress in the last 24 months, rapidly expanding rail lines, moving forward on the long-promised Subway to the Sea — or Brentwood, anyway — and most improbably, being named a bronze level Bicycle Friendly Community.

Although pedestrians seem to be lost in the process, as the city continues to remove crosswalks as it build others.

But now the city is threatening to backslide into the same old car-focused past that has repeatedly driven the many communities that make up our city into decline over the last half-dozen decades.

A new proposed bond measure promises to repair our crumbling streets, yet contains not one word committing to improvements for anything but motor vehicles, returning us to the bad old days of automotive hegemony that CM Rosendahl had promised was in the past.

Yet no one can deny that our streets are crumbling. Too many L.A. streets now resemble the cobblestones of Europe, as a broken patchwork of pavement causes collisions and needless costs for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians alike.

And fixing them now makes sense, sparing Angelenos the estimated $750 a year in added repair costs, not to mention the untold cost to repair countless broken bikes — and broken bones — suffered by cyclists who hit potholes or swerve dangerously to avoid them.

Historic low interest rates mean the city can borrow the money at favorable rates, and repave the streets now at a fraction of the cost it would cost in decades to come. And since the bond will be funded by a relatively insignificant increase in property taxes, the work can be done without adding to the city’s debt burden.

The problem, as always, is in the details.

Or the lack of them, as far too much as been left out of this measure.

Like a commitment to implementing bikeways contained in the city’s new bike plan as those streets are repaved, dramatically cutting the cost of implementation since those streets would need to be repainted anyway. And potentially cutting the time to build out the bike plan from 30 years to perhaps half of that, or less.

Worse, there is absolutely nothing in this massive bond issue that promises to repair the city’s broken sidewalks, estimated to cost $1 billion to $1.5 billion. Leaving a massive obstacle to creating more livable and walkable communities, while failing to give people an incentive to get out of their cars and off our highly congested streets.

My own wife has been injured twice as a result of tripping over broken sidewalks, suffering first a broken foot, followed by wrenched knee that continues to cause her problems to this day. How many others have been similarly injured, or simply stopped walking in their own neighborhoods because it’s simply not worth the risk?

Clearly, this will not be an easy measure to pass.

It will require a two-thirds majority, something very difficult to achieve as the recent failure of Measure J demonstrated, despite getting over 66.1% of the vote.

Which means you’ll need every vote you can get for passage, including the support of bicyclists and pedestrians. And right now, we have no incentive to support it — let alone vote yes in May.

In fact, as far as I’m concerned, this is dead in the water unless significant changes are made.

The city needs to make a firm commitment to building out the bike plan as streets are repaired, and rebuilding our streets using best practices that benefit all road users — based on the new mobility plan currently being finalized, rather than the outdated version it will replace.

It also needs to include provisions to fix our sidewalks. After all, while most Los Angeles residents are drivers, we’re all pedestrians at one time or another. And this will never be the great city it can and should be until we are free to walk when and where we want, safely and enjoyably.

Let’s also not fall into the old trap of treating infrastructure as separate elements; streets and sidewalks and crosswalks should be rebuilt as a single Complete Street designed to move people, not vehicles, and bring renewed life to all our communities. And they should incorporate Safe Routes to Schools, while providing necessary access for the disabled.

But with all due respect, you’ll excuse us if we don’t settle for promises than can be broken down the line. These matters need to be included in the ballot measure, locked in as part of the bond issue.

This morning’s City Council session will be visited, not by three ghosts, but by a phalanx of impassioned bicycling, pedestrian and safety advocates determined to fix this bond measure before it goes to the ballot in order to win their support, and the support of countless like-minded Angelenos such as myself.

Listen to them.

Then act on the suggestions they make.

The success of this bond measure, the livability of our city and the safety of its residents depends on it.

This afternoon, I sat in City Hall and watched as L.A.’s City Council unanimously passed a widely praised new bike plan. Tonight, I got a call from a friend who got clipped by a car on her way home.

The more things change, the more they stay the same, indeed.

I got up early to take the 1 to 1.5 hour bus ride downtown, arriving to find the council chambers filled to overflowing with Teamsters. They were there, I’m told, to support a proposal to disincorporate and annex so-called city of Vernon — the city where businesses outnumber residents and local government seems more akin to a fiefdom operating on a code of omertà.

The long, passionate discussion meant it was well after noon before the room emptied out enough to let us in. And because of the late hour, we were at risk of being pushed off to another day.

As a result, Councilmember Bill Rosendahl, who has championed the plan from the beginning, made a simple request. He could hold the quorum together long enough for a vote on the motion if we agreed to limit comments in favor of the plan to just 10 minutes.

I looked around the room, counted the cyclists — including several members of the city’s Bicycle Advisory Committee, as well as the LACBC and Bikeside — and decided that mine could wait for another day.

I’ll let others fill you in on the nuts and bolts of the hearing. But there were a few standout moments.

For instance, Bikeside’s Alex Thompson lead things off by knocking it out of the park, saying this plan makes L.A. competitive with any other city in the U.S. — better, even, than the widely praised plans of New York and Chicago.

Flying Pigeon LA owner Josef Bray-Ali said the plan includes propoals to document “the trail of blood on our streets.” And said that this information needs to be collected and made public.

The LACBC’s Alexis Lantz stated that our streets are currently biased against those too young or too old to drive, as well as those who choose not to. This plan, she said, will create complete, healthier streets, and she noted that the support of the council would be critical to its implementation.

The BAC’s Jeff Jacobberger pointed out that bikeways have already been placed where it’s easy, so now it’s time to put them where it’s hard, which may mean removing parking or a lane of traffic.

New Chair Jay Slater says the BAC stands ready to work with the city to implement the plan, insisting that it should not go the way of the failed 1996 bike plan. And outgoing Chair, and current Vice Chair, Glenn Bailey quoted William Mulholland, saying “There it is. Take it;” noting that we can’t turn back the clock, but we can educate drivers and cyclists to take back the streets.

Then there were the dueling comments from cyclists who support allowing mountain biking in city parks, and the equestrians dead set against any mode of parkland transportation with wheels instead of legs.

In the end, the plan was adopted, with a motion by Councilmember Tom LaBonge that the issue would be studied and that nothing in the plan would change existing policies in the meantime.

Although it should be noted that virtually every horseman and horsewoman, as well as a couple representatives from the Sierra Club, insisted that they support cyclists who ride for transportation; it’s just recreational riders in city parks that they oppose.

Which of course leads to the question of whether horses in the park are recreational, or if they’re used for transportation.

Then there was the comic relief provided by two commenters appearing on video from the Valley City Hall, who seemed to think that a three-foot passing law had miraculously been included as part of the plan. And insisted that no driver could possibly pass a cyclist at such a dangerously extravagant distance.

So if you get buzzed riding in the valley, you can start there in your hunt for suspects.

Meanwhile, Council President Eric Garcetti noted that he’s supported bikeways since he was seven years old, and takes pride in the design standards included in the plan that say Los Angeles embraces bicycling.

And Rosendahl said the plan isn’t the final word, and that if changes are necessary, “I’m not leaving; if the people re-elect me, I’ll be here for another five years.” He also suggested that once the plan is built out, “If you get me a safe place to ride, I’ll get on that bike.”

With that, LaBonge had BAC Chair Emeritus Alex Baum — the only remaining original member of the BAC, appointed by the late, great Mayor Tom Bradley — call for a vote on the motion. And it carried unanimously, with all 12 members voting in favor.

As for my remarks, I had intended to point out that the adoption of the bike plan wasn’t the end of a long and difficult process.

Rather, it’s the beginning of an even longer and more difficult one. Because now it’s up to all of us to ensure that the lines on that map turn into paint and signs on the street, and that it doesn’t end in failure like the last one.

I was also going to ask that we use this plan as a springboard to accomplish something that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. Or last year, even.

That the city commit itself to zero bicyclists killed on our streets by 2020.

It wouldn’t be easy. It would take education, enforcement, and genuine commitment from the Mayor, City Council, LAPD, LADOT, Street Services and Planning, as well as the entire cycling community.

But it is achievable. And using this plan as a springboard, we could make the last bike death in this city the last bike death in this city.

As for my friend, she was shaken up, but it sounds like she’ll be okay.

And when she called the police, they took her seriously, and sent a patrol car to her home to investigate what they said was a clear case of a hit-and-run.

Celebrate the passing of the bike plan when Mayor Villaraigosa plans to sign it at a rally and press conference on the steps of City Hall on Wednesday, from 9:30 am to 10 am.

.………

Mark your calendar for March 9th, when L.A.’s groundbreaking new bicycle anti-harassment ordinance is scheduled for a final hearing with the Transportation Committee before moving on to the full council for adoption; more information as it becomes available.

.………

Two other brief notes:

Frank Peters of cdmCyclist reports that agreement has been reached to ensure that bike lanes will be included on the soon-to-be-rebuilt Gerald Desmond Bridge in Long Beach — and that they won’t be cut from the plans, even if it comes in over budget.

And Road.CC says that Brazilian banker Ricardo Neis, who was recorded plowing down dozens of cyclists participating in the Porto Alegre Critical Mass, will be charged with attempted murder.

Evidently, Stephen Box isn’t the only local bike advocate running for City Council next spring.

I’d glanced at the list of candidates who filed before the deadline on Saturday, but hadn’t really paid much attention to it; other than Box and the current council members running for re-election, none of the names jumped out at me.

I should have looked a little harder.

I was on the phone last night with Hillel Aron, Editor-at-Large of Neon Tommy, USC’s outstanding online news source, when he asked what I thought about bike advocates such as Stephen Box and Glenn Bailey running for the council.

Wait a minute, I said.

Glenn Bailey is running for L.A. City Council?

So as soon as I got off the phone, I went back to look at the list of candidates to succeed retiring Councilmember Grieg Smith. And there he was, one of 11 candidates running in that district and the 72nd person to file for the council in Los Angeles, filing his papers on Friday, November 12th.

It’s true.

Neighborhood Council member and Bicycle Advisory Committee Chair Glenn Bailey is running for City Council in the Valley’s District 12. And yes, it’s the same Glenn Bailey.

Of course, that doesn’t mean he’s going to be on the ballot.

He still has to gather 1000 valid signatures (pdf) by December 8th to make it on the ballot, or gather 500 signatures and pay a $300 filing fee; unfortunately, petitions can only be signed by people registered to vote in that district or I’d volunteer to sign right now. And he has until December 13th to change his mind and back out.

But depending on how things turn out on March 8th, two of the city’s leading voices on behalf of cyclists could be doing a lot more than speaking for us.

And speaking of Grieg Smith, he promises to protect the Wilbur Ave bike lanes when and if the road diet is reconfigured.

.………

In light of Bailey’s candidacy, this would be a good time to remember his eloquent remarks at Mayor Villaraigosa’s recent Bike Summit.

Good morning Mayor Villaraigosa, fellow cyclists.

On behalf of the City’s Bicycle Advisory Committee, thank you for the opportunity to participate in the Mayor’s Bike Summit.

The BAC, was established by Mayor Bradley 35 years ago to make recommendations to the City on all bicycle related matters. It is composed of an appointee of each of the fifteen Councilmembers and four from the Mayor. For most of Mayor Bradley’s twenty years in office, his office staffed the Committee. As a result, when the Mayor’s office called a City department about a bicycle matter, they were usually responsive.

Several days ago the Mayor’s office requested the top bicycle priorities of the BAC. I invited each BAC member to respond and those suggestions have been compiled and submitted to your office as an “unofficial” list.

____________________________________________________________

Mr. Mayor, last December in an interview from Copenhagen you stated that the Los Angeles has to do a much better job for bicycling. We couldn’t agree more.

A better job for bicycling means safely accommodating bicycles on all projects, on all streets, without exception.

A better job for bicycling means the prompt repair of potholes, cleaning debris, and other hazardous road conditions.

A better job for bicycling means the vigorous enforcement against the blocking of bike lanes by delivery vehicles, unhitched trailers, or anything else. (Audience: trash cans!)

A better job for bicycling means a transit system that integrates cyclists in every aspect of its operation, not just when it’s convenient to do so.

A better job for bicycling means providing convenient and secure parking at every City building and park, including at City Hall itself, and at all commercial and retail locations.

A better job for bicycling means holding the line, in fact, rolling back the recent increases in speed limits.

A better job for bicycling means a properly trained police force that enforces the law equally and fairly and that protects and respects the rights of cyclists.

A better job for bicycling means vehicular hit and runs will be fully investigated and prosecuted for the crimes that they are.

A better job for bicycling means a visionary and robust City Bicycle Plan that is implemented each and every day, not just sitting on sitting on a shelf for five years awaiting its next revision.

A better job for bicycling means installing at least fifty miles of bicycle lanes every year for the next three years, rather than the five mile annual average of the past fourteen years under the current 1996 Bicycle Plan.

A better job for bicycling means incorporating the City Council endorsed Cyclist’s Bill of Rights in the operation of every City department and every action taken by the City and its employees.

And a better job for bicycling means welcoming and encouraging cyclists to participate in every step of the decision making process, the outcome of which affects our very lives.

The social calendar is starting to get busy, as the South Bay Bike Coalition is holding an informal cocktail mixer from 7 – 9 Tuesday night, and the Bikerowave plans a New Years Eve party, which could be the highlight, or highlighter, of the year.

Sometimes, what happens inside is actually as inspiring as the view outside.

It’s hard to call it a victory when we’ve still got so far to go.

But I’ll take a unanimous vote in City Council any day of the week.

After a couple hours of contentious debates over smoking restrictions and solar panels, the City Council finally got around to discussing the proposed anti-harassment ordinance that would give cyclists the right to sue in civil court for harassment, threats and assault.

Although we seriously need to find a catchier name for it.

Regardless, 11th District Councilmember Bill Rosendahl — who’s taken the lead in shepherding this ordinance through the countless pitfalls City Hall is famous for — set the tone when he said this ordinance just gives cyclists rights we should already have.

He was followed by Deputy City Attorney Judith Reel, who explained the nuts and bolts of the proposed ordinance, including a maximum award of $1,000 or actual damages, whichever is higher. Along with a provision for attorney’s fees if you win your case, which in many cases could far exceed the damages awarded by the court.

As Rosendahl put it, “This plan has teeth.”

And lets not forget that it was Reel who had the stroke of genius to make harassment a civil violation, resulting in a lower burden of proof compared to a criminal case. And allowing cyclists to file suit themselves, rather than rely on police to witness a violation.

Michele Mowery, Senior Bike Coordinator at LADOT, told the council that this ordinance is necessary because many motorists still believe that cyclists don’t belong on the road, and consider it sport to throw things at riders.

4th District Councilmember Tom LaBonge and 1st District Councilmember Ed Reyes also spoke in support — though LaBonge seemed equally concerned with the problems posed by out-of-control sidewalk riders.

Under questioning from Rosendahl, Reel said that if the council approved the motion, the actual drafting of the ordinance would take up to 60 days. Rosendahl urged her to come back to the council with the finished ordinance sooner, rather than later, and to include the LACBC in the reviewing process.

In the end, the council voted 12 – 0 to move forward, with three members absent.

Which means that, through two committee sessions and hearing before the full council, not one vote has been cast in opposition to the City Attorney’s proposal.

And cyclists are one step closer to a first-of-its-kind anti-harassment law that could set the standard for communities around the world.

.………

Below are my comments from the council session.

I want to make sure you understand how important this measure is.

Every day, cyclists face a barrage of harassments and threats. I’ve received reports of cyclists being crowded, yelled at, honked at, having things thrown at them and forced off the road; female cyclists have had to endure unwanted sexual comments and touching while they ride.

Some people complain about rude cyclists swearing and making gestures. That’s because, until now, that’s all we’ve had to defend ourselves. But as Dr. Thompson clear showed, no word or gesture is a match for an angry driver in a two-ton vehicle.

The police are here to protect us, but they can’t be everywhere. And few people will do these sorts of things if there’s a cop around to see it.

This proposed ordinance is a brilliant solution to these problems. It’s the first of its kind anywhere, giving cyclists the tools to protect ourselves even if there isn’t a cop around. More importantly, it will act as a deterrent to protect the city’s most vulnerable road users, and encourage more people to get out of their cars and onto their bikes.

It will save lives.

Overnight, it will transform L.A. from a bicycling backwater to the world leader in protecting cyclists. It will be copied by cities around the world; already, I’ve received several requests from cyclists across the county for a copy of the City Attorney’s report.

And I’m damned if I’m going to let an 84 degree sunny SoCal day pass without at least a quick spin down the coast.

But I don’t want to let this morning pass without catching up on yesterday’s news from the City Council Transportation Committee. Because it marked one of those vital quantum leap moments — a seemingly small shift that could result in a dramatic change down the road.

I’ll try to fill you in with more details later, but here’s the key point. After eloquent comments by Ross Hirsch — the attorney for hit-and-run victim Ed Magos — and BAC chair Glenn Bailey, the Transportation Committee voted unanimously to move forward with drafting a first-of-its-kind ordinance to ban harassment of cyclists.

While other cities and states have passed anti-harassment laws, this ordinance would be the first to allow cyclists to file suit themselves for violent or aggressive actions directed towards them, whether it’s committed by drivers, bystanders or even other riders.

As the representative from the City Attorney’s office stressed, it would not prohibit anything that is not already against the law, and it would not prevent criminal prosecution for any incident where there’s sufficient evidence to prosecute.

It would simply, finally, give cyclists the opportunity to protect themselves on the streets of L.A. And possibly prevent the kind of harassment that we’ve all experienced at one time or another.

And mark L.A.’s growth from a bicycling backwater to a world leader in protecting the rights of cyclists.

Yes, it really is that big.

The next test comes on Monday when the proposal will be taken up by the Council’s Public Safety Committee, which has been significantly less friendly to cyclists in the past.

The more riders we can get in that room, the better our chances to keep it moving forward.

But it took me awhile to put my finger on just where I’d seen it until it finally dawned on me.

When I lived in Denver a few decades back, I shared a house with a good friend of mine, who showed up one day with a Welsh Corgi he’d just adopted from the pound. And it didn’t take long to realize that it was his herding instincts were fully intact.

The dog, not my friend.

First he tried to herd my roommate’s cats, with limited success.

But we came to appreciate his skills when my friend hosted a party for his co-workers. When we let the dog outside to play with the dozen or so children in the backyard, he stood for a moment watching them scatter throughout the yard. Then he quickly set out to bring order to the chaos.

He started by running rapidly around the yard, drawing ever smaller circles around the kids. We watched in amazement as he guided them into a group; if any child tried to stray from his impromptu herd, he nosed in front and gently guided them back into the pack.

And that, in effect, is exactly what a driver tried to do to me on Saturday as I rode home from Tour de Fat.

I’d taken my place firmly in the center of the lane on a busy Koreatown street, where a line of parked cars made it too narrow to safely share. And I was riding at the same speed as the cars ahead of me, which meant that I could legally ride anywhere I wanted on the road.

But clearly, the law — and common sense — just isn’t good enough for some people.

The woman behind me evidently decided that I didn’t belong there. Or maybe, just didn’t belong in front of her.

So she pulled into the left lane as if she was going to pass, even though the backed-up traffic meant there wasn’t anywhere to go.

Then she slowly started nosing her humongous older Lincoln over into the exact space I was occupying. Just like that Corgi did in forcing the children to go where he wanted, she deliberately angled her car to move me out of the way, until she finally left me with no choice but to surrender my place on the road by braking and dropping behind her, or get hit.

I chose the latter.

She didn’t seem to acting in anger. In fact, she never once looked my way during the entire process. She just seemed to think that she belonged in there, and I didn’t.

I probably should have taken her license number and reported it. Or better yet, pulled out my cell phone and snapped a quick photo of it.

But I was too stunned to think that quickly.

In three decades of riding, I’ve pissed off more than a few drivers by taking the lane. I’ve been yelled and honked at, passed too close and had things thrown at me. But I never once encountered a driver who simply wouldn’t allow me to ride in the lane, and was willing to use her car as a wedge to force me out of it.

Until now.

Of course, even if I had reported her, there’s nothing the police could have done except take a report.

Without any physical evidence — like my blood on her car — an officer would have had to actually see her do it to take any action. Otherwise, it’s my word against hers.

But that may change soon.

This afternoon, the L.A. City Council’s Transportation Committee will take up a proposed bicycle anti-harassment ordinance that goes far beyond any similar law anywhere in the country.

Instead of making harassment of cyclists a crime, it would make it a civil offense. Which means you’d be able to file a case yourself, rather than rely on the actions of the police and the DA or City Attorney. And because it would be heard in civil court, where the burden of proof is much lower, it would only require the agreement of a majority of jurors, rather than the unanimous verdict required in a criminal case.

You also wouldn’t need physical evidence or an officer to witness the infraction to file charges. Video of the incident or statements from people who witnessed it could be enough to win your case.

And it would include a provision for lawyers fees if you win your case, so it would be easier to get an attorney to represent you in a matter that might not otherwise be worth their time and expertise.

More importantly, though, it would finally give cyclist the ability to defend ourselves on the streets. And take action on our own against dangerous, threatening and aggressive drivers, without resorting to a U-lock or risking a violent confrontation.

Even just the existence of the law could be enough to change driver’s behavior on the streets, once they realize that they could finally be held accountable for their actions.

It wouldn’t have helped me in my encounter with the woman who tried to herd me off the road. I was riding alone, with no potential witnesses and no way to document the event as it happened. And I escaped with no injuries or damage to my bike.

Then again, if she knew she could face a civil case, she might not have tried it to begin with.

The hearing takes place today at 2pm in room 1010 of Downtown’s City Hall. I know it’s short notice, but every voice that can be there to support this measure will help. If you can’t make it, you should be able to listen to the session live on the city’s website, or download it later.

And there will be another — and potentially more important — hearing on Monday in front of the far less bike-friendly Public Safety Committee, at a session that still hasn’t made the city’s calendar even though it’s just five days away.

A bike-hating Canadian website wants to get rid of bike lanes, but doesn’t want cyclists on the sidewalk, either — and equates cycling with aggressive panhandling. Stay in the right London hotel, and you, too, can ride a Boris Bike. In L.A., biking has it’s challenges, but at least it’s legal; in Iran, it’s not for women. Shanghai’s Forever bike brand attempts to spark a rebirth of the city’s bike culture.

Finally, why pump air into your tires when you can steal it from parked cars? Or maybe get it from the ones who harass you when they’re stopped at red lights if you’re fast. And brave.

But in a truly bizarre twist, LADOT — which has spent the last 14 years not building the previously approved projects in the 1996 bike plan — has no idea if they can actually spend the money, whether that turns out to be $3.2 million or the $5.35 million shown in our newly bike-friendly Mayor’s budget.

Which may be the first time — in my knowledge, at least — that a city department has gone out of it’s way to resist additional funding.

Speaking for the LADOT was Mike Uyeno, who was joined by Maria Souza-Rountree from the Chief Legislative Analyst Office. Time and again, Council Members asked if the LADOT would be able to spend Measure R Local Return funds that were set-aside. Time and again, Uyeno gave an answer somewhere between “no” and “I don’t know.” For example:

Councilman Paul Koretz asked:

Is there any chance at all that we’ll be unable to spend the 10% on bike and pedestrian needs.

Uyeno answered

I’m not sure. It depends what staffing becomes available. Not sure what ped. projects are out there in the department. There’s just a lot of open ends in this anymore.

In all fairness, the recent budget cuts have reduced the department’s staffing. But for the first time in memory, LADOT has both the funding and the political backing to actually accomplish something in terms of biking projects. And the best they can come up with is “I don’t know?”

I’d suggest giving LADOT’s leadership 30 days to come back with a plan to spend every penny of that money, effectively, efficiently and productively. And if they can’t do that, then it’s time to hire someone who can, or maybe just do what others have suggested and eliminate the department entirely.

Now the question is whether LADOT will support and implement the project, or if they will drag their feet until this turns into another sharrows project.

………

In local bike news, an unidentified hero bicyclist finished a police chase for them, as he ran down a suspected drunk driver who had taken off running after colliding with another vehicle during a police pursuit. Kudos to the cyclist, but standard advice is to point out the bad guys and let the police do the actual apprehension. Thanks to Jim Lyle for the heads-up.

Finally, 84% of Brits surveyed by a motorists’ group say more money, not more laws, will make cyclists safer; 82% say registration and licensing is a bad idea, and only 1% support mandatory helmet laws.

Do you want to leave this city better than you found it when your time on the council is over? Or do you want to continue down the same failed path that has brought L.A. gridlocked streets and declining neighborhoods?

Either way, your vote on Wednesday for or against the 10% set-aside for biking and pedestrian projects in the local return portion of Measure R should be clear.

You can vote to continue the same car-oriented culture that threatens to destroy our city, while leavening it with just enough expensive transit projects to maybe, almost keep up with anticipated growth. Or you can take a seemingly small shift in direction that will set L.A. on a pathway to less congestion, better health and improved livability.

Any guess how many able-bodied Americans walk during the course of their day?

It’s not like this city doesn’t have hundreds, if not thousands, of shovel-ready projects waiting for funding. Just ask the council’s representative from LADOT how many projects included in the 1996 bike plan still haven’t been built. All that’s lacking is a commitment to build them and the funding to do it.

And you can take care of both before this day is over.

In fact, biking and pedestrian projects are remarkably affordable. You could build every project recommended in the new bike plan for a fraction of what it will cost to extend the subway to Westwood. Or the $450 million currently being invested to gain a little short-term traffic relief on the 405 Freeway over the Sepulveda Pass.

Or have you forgotten how nice it used to be to drive on the 105 and 215 Freeways before increased demand overwhelmed the increase in capacity?

On the other hand, maybe you think driving is good for business.

I suspect the merchants on Santa Monica’s Third Street Promenade or Old Town Pasadena would argue otherwise, with their highly profitable clientele drawn almost exclusively by the walkability of those areas. Even the businesses on busy Hollywood Boulevard benefit far more from the crowds who wander down the sidewalks as opposed to those who drive past on the crowded street.

Now imagine what it would be like if it didn’t take an unpleasant drive on frequently gridlocked streets just to get there.

In fact, cities across the country are shifting from drive-through mode to walkable, bikeable, complete streetscapes. Even New York City has discovered the benefits of closing Broadway to vehicular traffic, making it one of the most popular destinations in the city.

Speaking of New York, that city — one of the most crowded and built-out in the nation — recently tripled the number of bike lanes on its streets. So much for the argument that L.A. is too built-out for bike projects.

That also answers the question of whether people will actually use those bike and pedestrian facilities if they’re built. Because New York — which, unlike Los Angeles, actually counts the number of bicyclists who ride on its streets, so they don’t have to guess — saw a 28% increase in ridership last year alone.

Or consider the crowded, crooked streets of New Orleans, where a new bike lane on St. Claude Avenue resulted in a 44% increase in male bicyclists. And a 133% increase in women riders.

If you build it, they will come. And every rider on a bike represents one car that isn’t on the streets. Isn’t that something Los Angeles could clearly benefit from?

How you vote today is up to you.

But few decisions you will ever make in your political career will have a greater impact on the future livability of this city.

Or on the legacy you’ll leave behind.

I had planned to speak in support of the 10% Measure R set-aside for biking and pedestrian projects at Wednesday’s City Council meeting, but a bout with bronchitis will keep me confined to home — and off my bike — for the next few days. So I’ll let this do my talking for me. Come back later for links and other interesting items.